Supplemental Figures A

Supplemental Figures a

e 10 cm

Figure 1. Lower Paleolithic pebble cores, a-b, d-e. choppers, c. core-scraper. Source: Ubeidiya (a-e). Redrawn after Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar (1993). a

c 10 cm

Figure 2. Lower Paleolithic pebble cores, a-b, discoids, c. core-scraper. Source: Ubeidiya (a-c). Redrawn after: Bar-Yosef and Goren- Inbar (1993). a

c d b

5 cm

Figure 3. Lower Paleolithic pebble cores, a. polyhedron, b-d. blade cores. Sources: Ubeidiya (a), Qesem Cave (b), Adlun/Abri Zumoffen (c-d). Redrawn after a. Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar (1993), Barkai, et al. (2006), Roe (1983). a b c

d e

5 cm

Figure 4. Flakes from pebble cores: a-c. cortical flakes, d-e. core-trimming elements, f. noncortical flake. Source: Ubeidiya: (a-f). Redrawn after Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar (1993). Chopper

Discoid

Continuing Reduction Polyhedron

Figure 5. Chopper-discoid-polyhedron curation model. a

10 cm

Figure 6. LCTs: Picks Sources: a. Ubeidiya (a), Latamne Quarry II (b). Redrawn after Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar (1993: 64), Clark (1967: 32). a

10 cm

c Figure 7. LCTs: Bifaces/handaxes (1 of 2). a. elongated cordiform biface, b. amygdaloid biface, c. ovate biface (on flake). Sources: a-c. Maayan Barukh (a-c). Redrawn after Stekelis and Gilead (1966). a 10 cm

b 10 cm

Figure 8. LCTs: Bifaces/handaxes (2 of 2). a. Micoquian biface, b. lanceolate biface. Sources: Maayan Barukh (a), b. Latamne (b). Redrawn after Stekelis and Gilead (1966), Clark (1967: 32). a

Scar from tranchet flake

b 10 cm

Figure 9. LCTs: Cleavers on cores. Sources: a. Maayan Barukh (a), Azraq Lion’s Spring (b). Redrawn after Stekelis and Gilead (1966), Copeland (1989). a

10 cm Figure 10. LCTs: Cleavers on large basalt flakes. Sources: Gesher Benot Yaacov (a-b). Redrawn after Goren-Inbar, et al. (1991), Goren- Inbar and Saragusti (1996). a b

d 10 cm

Figure 11. LCTs: a-b. Protobifaces, c-d. massive scrapers. Sources: a. Latamne (a), Maayan Barukh (b), Gesher Benot Ya’acov (c-d). Redrawn after Clark (1967), Stekelis and Gilead (1966), Goren-Inbar, et al. (2008: 706-707). A

B B A

10 cm

Figure 12. Acheulian “giant core”. Source: Gesher Benot Ya’acov. Redrawn after Goren-Inbar, et al. (1994:105) Resharpening

Figure 13. Lower Paleolithic LCT curation model. Notches & "Simple" "Complex" Denticulates Scrapers Scrapers

Figure 14. Lower Paleolithic retouched flake tools curation model Phase 0: Raw Material Phase 1: Inital Core Preparation Acquisition 2 3 1 0

Phase 2: Core Exploitation/Reduction Flake Products 7 6 8 5 9

10 4

Cores, Core Rejuvenation Products

12 15 16 17 11 13 14

Misc. Core Exploitation 20 21 18 19

Phase 3: Retouch, Resharpening Miscellaneous

22 23 24 25 26

3 cm

Figure 15. Geneste’s chaîne opératoire typology. 4 6 5

1 2 3 4 6 5 7

3 2

irreduceable minimum 1 volume

= minimum core thickness

1 2 14 8 3 15 21 27 9 4 16 28 22 39 34 23 5 17 29 40 46 10 51 35 6 18 30 41 47 24 11 52 36 42 19 31 53 12 7 54 55 48 25 32 43 56 37 20 58 57 13 49 33 44 62 60 59 26 45 63 50 6 38 5 61 10 4 3 11 2 9 1 8 irreduceable minimum volume

12-63

Figure 16. Schematic comparison of Levallois and prismatic blade cores. 5. Pseudo-Levallois point 6. Mousterian point 1. Typical Levallois flake 2. Atypical Levallois flake 3. Levallois point 4. Retouched Levallois point

11. Single concave scraper 12. Double straight scraper 9. Single straight scraper 10. Single convex scraper 7. Elongated Mousterian point 8. Limace

14. Double straight- 15. Double convex 13. Double straight- 16. Double concave 17. Double convex- 19. Convex convergent convex scraper concave scraper scraper scraper 18. Straight convergent concave scraper scraper scraper

21. Canted scraper 22. Straight transverse 23. Convex transverse 20. Concave convergent scraper 23. Concave transverse scraper scraper scraper 25. Scraper on ventral surface

27. Scraper with a 30. typical endscraper 31. Atypical endscraper 26. Abrupt scraper thinned back 28. Bifacial Scraper 29. Alternate scraper

break

34. Typical awl 35. Atypical awl 38. Naturally-backed knives 32. Typical burin 33. Atypical burin 36. Typical backed knife 37. Atypical backed knife

Figure 17. Schematic drawings of Bordes’ types 1-38. 39. Raclette 42. Mousterian 40. Notch tranchet 44. Alternate-retouched bec 41. Truncations

45. Flake with irregular 47. Thick flake or blade 48. Thin flake or blade retouch on ventral 46. Thick flake or blade 43. Denticulate with abrupt retouch with alternating retouch with abrupt retouch

49. Thin flake or blade 52. Notched triangle 51. Tayac point 53. Pseudo-microburin with alternating retouch 50. Bifacially-retouched flake 54. End-notched flake

56. Rabot

55. Hachoir

63. Bifacial foliate 58. Stemmed tool 57. Stemmed point

60. Inverse Chopper a

59. Chopper a. bifacial b. unifacial

b 61. Chopping tool Figure 18. Schematic drawings of Bordes’ types 39-63. Retouched? No Levallois Non-Levallois Debitage Yes 1. Typical Levallois flake 4. Pseudo-Levallois point Cores, Non-Levallois flakes, 2. Atypical Levallois flake 38. Naturally-backed knife shatter, debris, etc. 3. Levallois point Retouch Distal/Proximal Type? 22. Straight transverse scraper 23. Convex tranverse scraper Location 24. Concave transverse scraper Retouched 30. Typical endscraper Continuous Dorsal of Retouched 31. Atypical endscraper Surface? Notching Edge? Single Lateral Edge 42. Notch 54. End-notched flake Edge Angle? 52. Notched triangle Bifacial 44. Alternate retouched bec 28. Scraper with bifacial retouch 43. Denticulate 63. Bifacial foliate/point Abrupt/Steep 51. Tayac point 50. Bifacially-retouched piece 26. Abrupt scraper 55. Cleaver (hachoir) 36. Typical backed knife Burin Truncated-facetted piece 37. Atypical backed knife 32. Typical burin 39. Raclettte 33. Atypical burin Non-Abrupt/Acute Awl/Perforator 9. Single straight scraper 34. Typical awl Alternate 10. Single convex scraper 27. Scraper with thnned back 35. Atypical awl 11. Single concave scraper 29. Alternate scraper Parallel Edges Core-Like Ventral 12. Double straight scraper 59. Chopper 25. Scraper on ventral surface 13. Double straight-convex scraper 60. Inverse chopper 14. Double straight-concave scraper 61. Chopping tool 15. Double convex scraper 56. Rabot 16. Double concave scraper 17. Double convex-concave scraper Other 41. Mousterian tranchet Convergent Edges 53. Pseudo-microburin 4. Retouched Levallois point 45. Irregular retouch on interior 6. Mousterian point 46. Pieces with abrupt & alternating retouch 7. Elongated Mousterian point 57-58. Stemmed point/tool 8. Limace 62. Misc. 18. Straight convergent scraper 19. Convex convergent scraper 20. Concave convergent scraper 21. Déjeté scraper

Figure 19. Flow chart showing steps involved in classifying stone tools in Bordian typology Unretouched flake Notch/denticulate Single scraper

Convergent scraper/ Mousterian point Double scraper

Canted scraper

Figure 20. Middle Paleolithic scraper resharpening model. Black Sea

Turkey Caspian Karaïn Sea

Shanidar Euphrates

Tigris Syria Hazar Merd Iran Lebanon Bisitun Warwasi Mediterreanean Gar Kobeh Houmian Sea Gar Arjeneh Israel Iraq Huilan Valley Sites Jordan Kunji

Nile

Kuwait

Egypt For Levantine sites, Saudi Arabia see Figure 4.1 Persian Red 0 200 400 600 km Gulf Sea 0 200 200 miles

Figure 21. Map showing locations of Montane Mousterian sites. a b e c d

i g h f

k j l m

n o 5 cm

Figure 22. Montane Mousterian artifacts. a-b. Mousterian points, c-e. elongated Mousterian points, f-g. convergent scrapers, h-i. limaces, j. canted scraper, k. single sidescraper, l-m. double scrapers, n. core-on-flake, m. discoidal core. Sources: Kunji Cave (a-c, f, j, l-m), Warwasi Cave (d), Shanidar Cave Level L (e, i), Karain Cave (g, h, k, o), l-m. Kunji Cave. Redrawn after Baumler and Speth (1993), Dibble and Holdaway (1993), Solecki and Solecki (1993), Bar-Yosef (2000). a b c d

g e h f

5 cm

Figure 23. Upper Paleolithic blade-core-trimming elements: Crested blades and initiation of prismatic blade core reduction. a. Unmodified block, b. Creation of the crest by orthogonal flaking, c. Removal of crested blade, d. removal of guiding blades, e. asymmetrical crested blade, f. crested blade with multiple burin scars at distal end, g. crested blade, h. secondary crested blade. Sources: Boker Tachtit Level 1 (e), Boker Tachtit Level 2 (f), Ksar Akil Level XXII (g-h). Redrawn after Marks (1983), Ohnuma (1989). a lateral section view b c

plan view

core

1 2 3 2/3 1 4 4 Platform angle Acute platform 1 2 3 becomes too steep angle restored 4

proximal section view

d e

f g

5 cm

Figure 24. Upper Paleolithic blade-core-trimming elements: Platform retreat and core tablet flakes. a-c. Schematic diagram showing core tablet flake as a solution to platform retreat. a. Initial blade detached from concave striking platform. b. Successive blades cause the edge of the striking platform to retreat into the platform concavity, creating a platform angle close to 90, and making further blade removals difficult. c. Detachment of a core tablet flake restores an acute striking platform angle. d-f. core tablet flakes, g. refitting set of core tablet flakes. Note: d-f were modified into burins. Sources: KsarA kil Level XXI (d), Boker Area A (e-g). Redrawn after Marks (Marks 1977), Monigal (2003), Ohnuma (1989). b c a Core-Trimming by Plunging Flake plan view lateral section Core-Trimming by Distal or Lateral Flake

5a 5b 1 5a

3 2 4 core core core

4 2 3 1

5b 1 5a 5b 2 3 4

proximal section

f e 5 cm

Figure 25. Upper Paleolithic blade-core-trimming elements: Short termination and the creation of distal core-trimming elements and plunging flakes/blades. a. Successively shorter blade removals 1( -4) create a convexity at the distal end of the flake release surface that obstructs further blade removals. b. Distal convexity removed by a lateral or distal flake 5( a). c. Distal convexity removed by a plunging/ overshot blade (5b), d. lateral core-trimming flake, e. plunging blade, f. plunging flake. Sources: KsarA kil Level X (d), Boker Tachtit Level 1 (e) Boker Tachtit Level 4 (f). Redrawn after Bergman (1987), Marks (1983, 1977). a b c d e f

l h k i j g

m n o

t 20 mm r p q

Figure 26. Schematic diagrams of Upper Paleolithic endscraper types: a. Single endscraper, b. Atypical endscraper, c. Double flat endscraper, d. Alternate flat endscraper, e. Ogival endscraper, f. Endscraper on retouched blade, g. Endscraper on Aurignacian blade, h. Fan-shaped endscraper , i. Flake scraper, j. Endscraper on a Levallois point, k. Circular (end)scraper , l. Thumbnail endscraper , m. Carinated endscraper, n. Atypical carinated endscraper, o. Lateral carinated endscraper, p. Thick-nosed endscraper, q. Flat-nosed or shouldered endscraper, r. Micro-carinated endscraper, s. Multiple carinated endscraper, t. Thick endscraper on a core (“rabot”). e.1 a b c d

f g h i j e.2

m n o k l

p q r

Figure 27. Schematic diagrams of Upper Paleolithic burin types. a. Straight dihedral burin, b. Offset dihedral burin, c. Angle dihedral burin, d. Angle dihedral burin on break, e. Multiple dihedral burin, f. Beaked burin, g. Carinated burin, h. Flat-faced carinated burin, i. Right angle straight truncation burin, j. Oblique straight truncation burin, k. Burin on a concave truncation, l. Burin on a convex truncation, m. Oblique burin on a lateral preparation, n. Transverse burin on a lateral preparation, o. Transverse burin on a notch, p. Multiple burin on a truncation, q. Mixed multiple burin, r. Burin on a Levallois point. a

Figure 28. Retouch curation of blades: a. distal retouch, b. lateral retouch, c. burination. c

a b d e f g

m n h i j k l

o q r s

Figure 29. Schematic diagrams of common Upper Paleolithic retouched tools. perforators, backed knives, truncations. a. Typical perforator (Perforator, Curved perforator), b. Atypical perforator (spike, bec), c. Micro-perforator, d. Multiple perforator, e. Naturally- backed knife, f. Atypical backed knife, g. Knife with a curved back, h. Knife with a straight back, i. Piece with an irregular back, j. Piece with two backed edges, k. Partially-backed piece, l. Backed point (aka Falita point), m. Backed fragment, n. Shouldered piece, o. Truncated flake, p.T runcated blade, q. Piece with curved truncation, r. Bitruncated piece, s. Backed and truncated piece. a b c d e f

h i j g k

n q l m o p

s r t

Figure 30. Schematic diagrams of common Upper Paleolithic retouched tools. notches & denticulates, combination pieces, miscellaneous retouched tools. a. Clactonian notch, b. retouched notch, c. blade or bladelet with multiple notches, d. denticulate, e. alternate burinated be, f. endscraper/sidescraper, g. endscraper/burin, h. carinated endscraper-burin, i. endscraper/truncated piece, j. burin-truncated piece, k. perforator-truncated piece, l. perforator-endscraper, m. perforator-burin, n. flake with continuous retouch, o. blade with continuous retouch on one edge, p. blade with continuous retouch on both edges, q. pointed piece, r. piece with inverse or alternate retouch (includes Dufour bladelet), s. raclette, t. denticulated scraper (Ksar Akil scraper) a b c

g h f d e

i k j

l m n o

q p

5 cm r

Figure 31. Characteristic artifacts of Baradostian assemblages. a-c. Dufour bladelets, d-h. El Wad points, i-j multiple burins, k laterally- carinated piece, l-m carinated endscrapers, n-o. blades with invasive “Aurignacian” retouch, p. bladelet core/endscraper, q. lateral burin/ bladelet core, r. prismatic bladelet core. Sources: a-c, r. Warwasi Cave various levels, d-e. Yafteh Cave, f-k, q. Shanidar Cave Level C, l-p Karaïn Cave B. Redrawn Yalçinkaya and Otte (2000), Otte and Kozlowski (2007). c a b d e f

j k l g h i polish

m n o p q r

s t u v w 5 cm

Figure 32. Schematic diagram of Epipaleolithic retouched blade tools. a. Partially retouched backed blade, b. Completely retouched backed blade, c. Backed blade with both edged backed, d. Inversely/alternately retouched backed blade, e. Helwan blade, f. Backed knife, g. Curved backed knife, h. Straight truncation, i. Concave truncation, j. Oblique truncation (high angle), k. Oblique/backed truncation (low angle), l. Backed and truncated piece, m. El Wad point, n. Falita point, o. Unretouched sickle blade, p. Sickle blade on backed blade or bladelet, q. Sickle blade on curved backed blade, r. Sickle blade on Helwan blade or bladelet, s. Awl, t. Borer, u. Notched blade, .v Multiple notched blade, w. Denticulated blade. Scale is approximate. d e f

a b c

Figure 33. Hypothetical hafting arrangements for Levantine Epipaleolithic microliths. a-c. Middle Epipaleolithic trapezoids, d-f. Late Epipaleolithic crescents. Redrawn after Yaroshevich et al. (2010: Figure 14). c d e a b

j k f g h i

n o p l m

s u v q r t w

x y z aa bb cc

ff gg dd ee 5 cm

Figure 34. Schematic diagram of Common Epipaleolithic retouched tools: Scrapers (a-k), carinated pieces (l-r), burins (s-ff), mixed types (gg). a. scraper on flake, b. scraper on retouched flake, c. thumbnail scraper, d. transversal scraper, e. rounded or circular scraper, f. sidescraper, g. scraper on blade or bladelet, h. scraper on retouched blade or bladelet, i. ogival scraper, j. denticulated endscraper, k. double scraper, l. shouldered scraper, m. nosed scraper, n. broad carinated scraper, o. narrow carinated scraper, p. lateral carinated scraper, q. core scraper, r. double carinated scraper, s. dihedral burin, t. dihedral angle burin, u. burin on break/natural surface, v. double dihedral burin, w. beaked burin, x. carinated burin, y. flat-faced burin, z. burin on straight truncation, aa. burin on oblique truncation, bb. burin on convex truncation, cc. burin on concave truncation, dd. burin on lateral notch, ee. transverse burin on lateral notch,ff. multiple mixed burin, gg. burin/scraper. Redrawn after Goring-Morris (1987). 1

1 2

percussion abrasion

Grinding Stone Mortar

Figure 35. Schematic diagram showing how groundstone tools are shaped by percussion and abrasion. a

Plan

Profile

1 m

Plan

30 cm Profile

c 3

Plan 2 1

Profiles 4 2 1

1 m Figure 36. Epipaleolithic rock-cut installations. a. cluster of “cup-marks”/mortar-holes, b. cluster of “cup-marks”/mortar holes and narrow cone mortar), c. horizontal grinding surface and narrow cone mortar). Sources: Hruk Musa (a), Abu Salem (b) El Wad Terrace (c). Redrawn after Eitam (2009). e

d c a b

5 cm i Figure 37. Neolithic blades and blade-core trimming elements. a-c. prismatic blades, d-e. crested blades, f-g. bidirectional blades/distal blade core rejuvenation flakes, h. overshot flake, i. core tablet flake. Sources: Beidha (d-e, h-i).T ell Ain el-Kerkh (a-c, f-g). Redrawn after Arimura (2011), Mortensen (1970). a

Figure 38. Morphological differences among celts (left) and presumed modes of use (right). a. axe, b. adze, c. chisel. Distal

Medial

Proximal

a 5 cm

Distal

Medial

Proximal

d 5 cm

Figure 39. Neolithic celt fragments. a. distal, medial, and proximal fragments of a celt broken by “Huleh” bending fractures, b-d. distal, medial and proximal celt fragments broken by lateral snapping and bending fractures. Sources: a. Besiamoun and Abu Ghosh, b-d. Nahal Zehora II. Redrawn after Barkai (2005). % 70 chisels axes 60 adzes

0 PPNA PPNB Early PN Late PN Chalcolithic (3 sites) (4 sites) (3 sites) (3 sites) (7 sites)

Figure 40. Relative frequencies of different celt types in Neolithic assemblages. Redrawn after Barkai (2005). Date Ka SOUTHERN LEVANT 6.0 NORTHERN LEVANT CENTRAL LEVANT

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

Common Rare Common Rare Common Rare RELATIVE FREQUENCY IN ASSEMBLAGES

Abu Maadi points Byblos points

El Khiam points Amuq points

Helwan points Nizzana, Haparsa, Herzliya points

Jericho points Transverse arrowheads

Figure 41. Neolithic projectile point chronology. Redrawn after Gopher (1994). a d b c

Figure 42. Conjectural hafting of sickle inserts. a. Single insert set diagonally or perpendicularly into a straight handle, b. multiple inserts set diagonally into a curved handle, c. multiple inserts set parallel a curved handle, d. multiple inserts set parallel into a straight handle. Truncation

Backing

Finished Geometric Microlith

Figure 43. Convergent strategies for microlith production. REFERENCES CITED

Arimura, M. 2011. “LPPNB blade caches at Tell Ain el-Kerkh, north-west Syria,” in The State of the Stone: Terminologies, Continuities and Contexts in Near Eastern Lithics. Edited by E. Healey, S. Campbell, and O. Maeda, pp. 373-384. Berlin: ex oriente. Bar-Yosef, O. 2000. “The Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Southwest Asia and Neighboring Regions,” in The Geography of Neandertals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean. Edited by O. Bar-Yosef and D. Pilbeam, pp. 107-156. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Bulletin No. 8. Bar-Yosef, O., and N. Goren-Inbar. 1993. The Lithic Assemblages of ‘Ubeidiya. Qedem 34. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Institute of Archaeology. Barkai, R. 2005. Flint and Stone Axes as Cultural Markers. Socio-Economic Changes as Reflected in Holocene Flint Tool Industries of the Southern Levant. Berlin: ex oriente. Barkai, R., A. Gopher, and R. Shimelmitz. 2006. Middle Pleistocene blade production in the Levant: An Amudian assemblage from Qesem Cave, Israel. Eurasian Prehistory 3:39-74. Baumler, M. F., and J. D. Speth. 1993. “A Middle Paleolithic Assemblage from Kunji Cave, Iran,” in The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros- Taurus. Edited by D. Olzewski and H. L. Dibble, pp. 1-73. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum (Monograph No. 83). Bergman, C. A. 1987. Ksar Akil, Lebanon. A Technological and Typological Analysis of the Later Paleolithic Levels at Ksar Akil. Volume II: Levels XIII- VI. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series (no. 329). Clark, J. D. 1967. The Middle Acheulian Occupation site at Latamne, northern Syria. Quaternaria 9:1-68. Copeland, L. 1989. “The artifacts from the sounding of D. Kirkbride at Lion Spring, Azraq in 1956,” in The Hammer on the Rock: Studies in the Early Palaeolithic of Azraq, Jordan (part 1). Edited by L. Copeland and F. Hours, pp. 171-212. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 540 (ii). Dibble, H. L., and S. J. Holdaway. 1993. “The Middle Paleolithic Industries of Warwasi,” in The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Edited by D. Olzewski and H. L. Dibble, pp. 75-99. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum (Monograph No. 83). Eitam, D. 2009. Late Epipalaeolithic Rock-Cut Installations and Groundstone Tools in the Southern Levant. Methodology and Classification System. Paléorient 35:77-104. Gopher, A. 1994. Arrowheads from the Neolithic Levant: A Seriation Analysis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Goren-Inbar, N., A. Lister, E. Werker, and M. Chech. 1994. A Butchered Elephant Skull and Associated Artifacts from the Acheulian Site of Gesher Benot Ya’aqov, Israel. Paléorient 20:99-112. Goren-Inbar, N., and I. Saragusti. 1996. An Acheulian Biface Assemblage from Gesher Benot Ya’acov, Israel: Indications of African Affinities. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:15-30. Goren-Inbar, N., G. Sharon, N. Alperson-Afil, and I. Laschiver. 2008. The Acheulean massive scrapers of Gesher Benot Ya’aqova product of the biface chaîne opératoire. Journal of Human Evolution 55:702-712. Goren-Inbar, N., I. Zohar, and D. Ben-Ami. 1991. A new look at old cleavers -Gesher Benot Ya’aqov. Mitekufat Haeven 24:7-33. Goring-Morris, A. N. 1987. At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 361. Marks, A., and D. Kaufman. 1983. “Boker Tachtit: the Artifacts,” in Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 3: The Avdat/Aqev Area (Part 3). Edited by A. Marks, pp. 69-126. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press. Marks, A. E. 1977. “The Upper Paleolithic Sites of Boker Tachtit and Boker: A Preliminary Report,” in Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. 2: The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 2 and the Har Harif. Edited by A. E. Marks, pp. 61-79. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Monigal, K. 2003. “Technology, Economy and Mobility at the Beginning of the Levantine Upper Paleolithic,” in More Than Meets the Eye: Studies on Upper Palaeolithic Diversity in the Near East. Edited by A. N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen, pp. 118-132. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Mortensen, P. 1970. A Preliminary Study of the Chipped Stone Industry from Beidha, an Early Neolithic Village in Southern Jordan. Acta Archaeologica 41:1-54. Ohnuma, K. 1989. Ksar Akil, Lebanon: A Technological Study of the Earlier Upper Paleolithic Levels of Ksar Akil. Volume 3: Levels XXV-XIV. Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports International Series 426. Otte, M., and J. Kozlowski. 2007. L’Aurignacien du Zagros. Liége, Belgiuim: ERAUL. Roe, D. A. Editor. 1983. Adlun in the Stone Age. Vol. 159. BAR International Series. Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports. Solecki, R. S., and R. L. Solecki. 1993. “The pointed tools from the Mousterian occupations of Shanidar Cave, northern Iraq,” in The Paleolithic Prehistory of the Zagros-Taurus. Edited by D. Olzewski and H. L. Dibble, pp. 119-146. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum (Monograph No. 83). Stekelis, M., and D. Gilead. 1966. Maayan Barukh, A Lower Paleolithic Site in Upper Galilee (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Center for Prehistoric Research. Yalçinkaya, I., and M. Otte. 2000. Début du Paléolithique supérieur à Karain (Turquie). L’Anthropologie 104:51-62. Yaroshevich, A., D. Kaufman, D. Nuzhnyy, O. Bar-Yosef, and M. Weinstein-Evron. 2010. Design and performance of microlith implemented projectiles during the Middle and the Late Epipaleolithic of the Levant: experimental and archaeological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:368-388.